Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR365(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, A.C.J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as ultra vires and violative of Article 301 read with Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India since the provision is not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and further for a direction restraining the respondents from enforcement of the provisions of Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act. 2005 whereby Entry Tax is liable to be collected on entry of goods mentioned in Schedule III of the said Act. The petitioners further sought a declaration that the entry tax is not compensatory in nature falling under Article 304 of the Constitution of India. As such, the said provision is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents-State filed counter-affidavit taking various defences available in law in support of their case that provisions of the Act is compensatory in nature and, therefore, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-05-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1355
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Deoghar in Title Partition Suit No. 32/2000 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner along with proforma respondents-defendants.2. The question that arose for consideration is as to whether daughter being a co-parcener is a necessary party in a suit for partition of ancestral co-parcenary property.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-respondents Ist set filed petition suit No. 32/2000 for partition of joint family ancestral property. Defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement taking various pleas including non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner-defendant filed a petition for adding Savitri Devi, Usha Devi and Mina Devi as defendants in the suit on the ground that they are co-parceners having equal right title and interest over the ancestral pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-27-2008
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR336; [2008(4)JCR316(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Since common question of law arises on the basis of identical facts in all the three writ applications, they are heard and disposed of together by this common order.2. Challenge in these writ petitions is against the initiation of the land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 1 of 2006-07 (Annexure-3) in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Petitioners claim themselves to be owners of the various units of land situated within Pundag and other areas and this fact is confirmed by the revenue records of the State Government, wherein the names and identity of the petitioners in respect of their respective area of land, stands mutated and they are in occupation and possession of their respective lands.4. A public interest litigation vide W.P. (PIL) No. 149 of 2003 was filed before thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-04-2008
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR129; 2009CriLJ57
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The present application f Article 254 of the Constitution of India or quashing has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Bench of this Court to consider 'as to whether Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by Bihar Act IV of 1976 stood repealed or modified in view of the subsequent amendment of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Parliament by Act 63 of 1984?'3. This question has been referred by the learned Single Judge in view of two decisions of two different Single Benches of this Court, i.e. the decision rendered in the case of Sanjay Pd. Sinha @ Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. Passed in Cr. M.P. No. 436/2006, which, according to the referring Judge, is in direct conflict with the other decisions rendered in the case of Purshottam Dubey and Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in and the case of Gautam Joshi and Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in .The brief facts of the case are th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-13-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2126; [2008(3)JCR698(Jhr)]; (2009)24VST233(Jharkh)
M.Y. Eqbal, Acting C.J.1. The instant writ petition has been listed for hearing after the matter was remitted back by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3188 of 2007.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of re-assessment dated 5/5/2006 passed under Sections 17(3) and 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. The writ petition was dismissed by this Bench on 27/11/2006 holding that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order as provided under the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to this court with observation that the question of vires of the provision of the Act and the Rules cannot be gone into by the Authority under the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:In our view the question of vires of provisions of the Act or the Rule cannot be gone into by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-05-2008
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR117; [2008(4)JCR260(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. The present election petition has been preferred by the petitioner for declaring election of the sole respondent, the returned candidate from 10-Dumka Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled tribe category as null and void.The petitioner's case is as under:i. That he as a voter from the Dumka assembly constituency, had filed his nomination paper to contest election of assembly seat held in the year 2005. However, his nomination paper was rejected illegally by the Returning Officer-cum-S.D.M., Dumka on 7.2.2005.ii. That illegal rejection of the nomination paper filed by the petitioner was just to help the returned candidate and was against the provisions of law.iii. That the petitioner being 'Lohar' by caste had been declared scheduled tribe in Part III list of scheduled tribes at Sl. No. 22 for the State of Bihar by the President of India under Article 342 of the Constitution of India.iv. That recognition of 'Lohar'/'Lohra' otherwise spelt as 'Lohar' by different ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-27-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Jhar47; 2009(57)BLJR352; [2008(4)JCR420(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The petitioner in this writ application has made the following prayers:(a) For an order for quashing the Possession Notice dated 22.11.2007, issued by the Respondent No. 2, under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter In short 'SERFESI' Act) communicating a declaration thereby to the petitioner and the public in general that the Respondent has taken possession of the petitioner's property, mentioned in the Notice, in exercise of the provisions under Section 13(4) of the 'SERFESI' Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules, thereunder.(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ with a declaration that Possession Notice dated 22.11.2007 in relation to the immovable properties mentioned in the impugned Notice, is bad and illegal on the ground that the said properties were never mortgaged in favour of the Respondent-Bank and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as a security for enfor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-27-2008
Reported in : AIR2009Jhar14; 2008(56)BLJR2914; [2008(4)JCR162(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. The petitioner, which is a manufacturing unit of MS Ingots, castings and other still products, had taken loan of Rs. 55 Lacs from the respondents-Punjab and Sind Bank under hypothecation after equitable mortgage in the year 2001 by way of cash credit facility.2. The petitioner had been paying the amount of accrued interest and submitting the stock statement and other documents as prescribed by the Bank.3. By letter dated 9.3.04 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was informed by the respondents-Bank that the sale proceeds as well as the stock statement have not been submitted and the same must be submitted to the Bank.4. The petitioner submitted all the required documents and also explained that the delay was due to illness of the Director (Annexure-3). The petitioner requested the respondents-Bank to resume the transaction.5. Suddenly the petitioner was served with a notice dated 29.11.04 (Annexure-8) from the respondents-Bank purportedly sent under Section 13(2) o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-29-2008
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR249(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. No election of municipal corporations, municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and other bodies had taken place in the State of Jharkhand for the last 22 years and it was only after the directions of Courts and demand of public when election programmes of the municipal corporations, municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and other bodies have been announced and published in the Gazette, these writ petitions have been filed challenging the vires of various provisions of Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, specially the decision of the State Government and the State Election Commission reserving some of the posts of Mayor, Chairman and Vice-Chair-man of the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and women.2. In W.P. (C) No. 917 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the notification of the State Election Commission dated 28.1.2008 whereby the post of Mayor in Ranchi Municipal Corporation for a woman candidate belonging t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Aug-12-2008
Reported in : 2008(57)BLJR34; [2008(4)JCR406(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In all these writ petitions since common relief has been sought for, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. W.P. (PIL) No. 3166/08 is a public interest litigation seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto for quashing the Notification No. 1420 dated 16.3.2007 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4 Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Jharkhand Ranchi whereby respondent No. 5, Shri R.K. Sinha has been appointed as the Secretary of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and for a direction to the respondents to fill up the post of Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board by a competent and eligible person having clean records.3. In WPC No. 3203 of 2007, petitioner claiming himself to a social worker has made similar prayer for quashing the Notification dated 13.2.2007 issued by Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand authorizing respondent No. 5, Mr. R.K. Sinha...
Tag this Judgment!